Revelation 20

[Kurieuo]

Split from http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?p=764#764

I believe SDA's take an amillenium approach, so BW would perhaps believe the first resurrection has already happened? For example:
<blockquote>4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev 20:4-6)</blockquote>Now I'm not entirely familiar with what standard amill theology says, but my own eschatology seems congenial with an amill position. I consider those who came to life in the above passage to have done so after Christ's resurrection. Thus, the thief may not have "soul slept" for long if at all. We who die now however, I believe would enter a soul sleep (which I consider to be a state of a disembodied soul), until the "thousand years" are over.

I'd personally be interested to know how my own developed eschatology aligns with SDA's.

Kurieuo.

[RGeeB]

Just to step away from the topic again:

Kurieuo quote:

Now I'm not entirely familiar with what standard amill theology says, but my own eschatology seems congenial with an amill position. I consider those who came to life in the above passage to have done so after Christ's resurrection. Thus, the thief may not have "soul slept" for long if at all. We who die now however, I believe would enter a soul sleep (which I consider to be a state of a disembodied soul), until the "thousand years" are over.

Revelation 20:4-6

Appears that there are two resurrections - The first of some 'blessed' ones, who will reign with Christ in glorified bodies, in the millenium.

Again, you appear to be amillel - How do you explain the binding of Satan, so he can't deceive?

[Jac3510]

The biggest reason I reject soul sleep is because of Jesus' words in Matthew 22:32. There, Jesus quotes God saying, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." He goes on to say that God is the God of the living, not the dead. Clearly, He was asserting that the three patriarchs are still alive.

Rev 20-21 is another good example . . . I'll wait to comment further until Bav. clarifies his position on millenialism. It has a strong bearing on the discussion, so I suspect we'll end up talking about that.

Of course, Jesus' statement on the cross to the thief is extremely important. I think I've well established that the comma goes before today. I've certainly heard no refutation whatsoever to the arguments I presented.

We also have Paul's popularly quoted statement 2 Cor. 5:8, "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." And, what of Paul's personal confession in Phil 1:23, "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better" (sorry for the KJV). Is Paul mistaken? Clearly, he thought that when he died he'd go straight on the be with Christ. It doesn't make sense to read this as mere sleep . . . in that case, Paul gains nothing. Even if for him it is what seems like a moment, the fact is, he would not be leaving to go on with Christ. He would be leaving to sleep until the judgment.

Anyway, I await comment on the Revelation passage . . .

[BavarianWheels]

The biggest reason I reject soul sleep is because of Jesus' words in Matthew 22:32. There, Jesus quotes God saying, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." He goes on to say that God is the God of the living, not the dead. Clearly, He was asserting that the three patriarchs are still alive.

I gather then that you believe you've already physically died and paid the price of sin. (I think we all understand the legal aspect of death through Christ's...)

Rev 20-21 is another good example . . . I'll wait to comment further until Bav. clarifies his position on millenialism. It has a strong bearing on the discussion, so I suspect we'll end up talking about that.

Sadly, I'm not an expert here, but would be willing to answer questions concerning specifics.

Of course, Jesus' statement on the cross to the thief is extremely important. I think I've well established that the comma goes before today. I've certainly heard no refutation whatsoever to the arguments I presented.

We've established nothing of the sort. We've agreed (in prior discussion) that the thief more than likely died that same day. I am not, however, 100% in agreement, but I'm no scholar on the subject either.

What we do have is that the translators put the comma where it is from a biased opinion...and not from first hand knowledge.

We also have Paul's popularly quoted statement 2 Cor. 5:8, "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." And, what of Paul's personal confession in Phil 1:23, "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better" (sorry for the KJV). Is Paul mistaken? Clearly, he thought that when he died he'd go straight on the be with Christ. It doesn't make sense to read this as mere sleep . . . in that case, Paul gains nothing. Even if for him it is what seems like a moment, the fact is, he would not be leaving to go on with Christ. He would be leaving to sleep until the judgment.

If death is like sleep (which I believe it is consistent with the whole of the scriptures) then anyone's death is to be immediately transported to the coming of Christ since when we sleep, we are not conscious of the passing of time. One moment you're asleep...and the next the alarm is going off to get up and go to work.

Anyway, I await comment on the Revelation passage . . .

Like I mentioned, It would probably be easier to answer specific questions rather than give a exegesis of the chapters.

Simply put...The dead are all dead and in sheol...the place of the dead...that being the grave...in body and the "soul" or breath of life returns to God who gave it. The person is dead and knows nothing.

When Christ comes, he will raise all the righteous dead. Them and the living righteous will rise together to meet Christ in the clouds. The righteous do not receive immortality until this point. Nothing within a human is immortal...including the "soul". The righteous will then reign with Christ in heaven for a "thousand" years while Satan is stuck here on earth with nothing to do really as all are dead. A prison of sorts. After the "thousand" years, Christ and the righteous will return and the dead will be raised. Satan will gather them for battle and then is when the "hell" of separation will be handed out.

After this, the earth will be made new and the righteous will live here forever...with Christ.

That's it in a short synopsis.
.
.

[Kurieuo]

Hi RGeeB,

Eschatology is one part of my theology I haven't deeply examined. Although I have come to some conclusions about some issues, and discovered I tend to align with the a-mill position. After my above post I spent some looking into Revelation 20. I would withdraw my comments which imply that "all" people would now enter a soul sleep at death until the "thousand years" are over. Not because I think a soul sleep is wrong (it seems logically consistent from a dualist perspective), but because I believe not everyone "was" raised at the first resurrection [as evidenced by "(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)" wedged between talk of those first resurrected]. Such implies a difference to who I orignally thought were apart of the first resurrection. I just wished to clarify this to all for myself, but onto your question...

Again, you appear to be amillel - How do you explain the binding of Satan, so he can't deceive?

One of my first questions (in trying to understand this part of chapter 20) was are there any other parts of Scripture with similar references?

Christ said, "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come unto you. Or else how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house." (Matthew 12:28 & 29) Christ's dying on the cross set us free from sin, and to those who accept Christ in accordance with the Gospel, they have been plundered from Satan's camp. Yet, this would not be possible, according to Christ above, unless Satan was first bound. As Hebrews 2:14-15 further defines, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

Now in relation to Satan's no longer deceiving, this is in reference to "the nations." What are the nations? And how is Satan no longer deceiving? Jesus says in John 12:31-32, "Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men [emphasis on "all"] to myself." Before Christ was lifted up, God's covenant was for Israel. Yet after, the Gentile nations could also come in. Simeon said, "For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel" (Luke 2:30-32). Up until Christ, Satan had a grip on the Gentile nations. Because of Christ, Satan's power became bound and he can no longer hold and deceive anyone who chooses to leave his kingdom and receive the Gospel. As Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." (Romans 1:16)

Kurieuo.

[RGeeB]

Firstly, I want to state that I do not hold on to one position rigourously. If the discussions here are convincing, then I'll change 'my' eschatology accordingly.

These are the conclusions I draw from an examination of Revelation 20:

1) God sends an angel to bind the devil for a specific season. The verses quoted by K seem to be referring to the concept of the defeated foe - still deceiving, but the purpose of death through sin is defeated.

2) The non-deception of the nations will be clear to see - Only when he is loosed does the devil round up the gog and magog foes.

3) The judgement of the righteous occurs chronologically after the return of Christ in the clouds with glorified saints to Armageddon, after the mark of the beast (The composition of these saints appears to be those in heaven and those who were awakened out of soul sleep).

4) These reign with Christ, who is now located on earth, in glorified bodies. There is an end to this reign.

5) Armies gather around them, in the place from which they reign - I assume this is 'old' Jerusalem.

6) After the devil has carried out his final bout of deception, he finally gets cast into 'the lake of fire' - an eternal abode prepare for him.

7) The old heaven and earth are destroyed. This implies that heaven now is only a temporary residence.

The rest of the soul sleepers come to life and are judged by their works. Anyone not qualifying for the book of life goes to the lake of fire.

Interesting to note that there are dead people in hell. Well, hell and death are also destroyed.

[Kurieuo]

Firstly, I want to state that I do not hold on to one position rigourously. If the discussions here are convincing, then I'll change 'my' eschatology accordingly.

It is not my intention to convince, but to just offer up my view. So feel free to challenge anything I say. I've seen people get into heated debated regarding eschatology, and I'm not interested. Although I consider all Christian doctrines important, this one to me is like asking how many angels can dance on a pin point (where on earth did that analogy come from? ). I think it a blessing though to examine such issues.

1) God sends an angel to bind the devil for a specific season. The verses quoted by K seem to be referring to the concept of the defeated foe - still deceiving, but the purpose of death through sin is defeated.

I don't find the word "angel" as conclusive that the person is not Christ. If you do then fair enough. Just wondering, are you familiar with the concept of the "angel of the Lord" in the OT as representing Christ?

I find it also significant to read that the archangel Michael, "when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9). Can an angel bind Satan, who is often said to be the most glorious creature God made? (Ezekiel 28)

It is perhaps also important that "angel" doesn't necessarily have to designate a heavenly being, but can simply mean "messenger" or "agent." So within the context of other verses I believe that the only messenger or agent who has the power to bind Satan is Jesus Christ.

4) These reign with Christ, who is now located on earth, in glorified bodies. There is an end to this reign.

Some passages I've come across are...

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:4-6)

Are we not raised up with Christ now?

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24)

"Jesus said to Martha: I am the resurrection and the life; he that believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26).

It is said of those apart of the first resurrection that the second death has no power (Rev 20:6). Do you believe in Christ? Do you believe you will never die? Looking back to Revelations 20, are you apart of the first resurrection?

Kurieuo.

[RGeeB]

Hmmm...There is one statement in the beginning of revelation which seems to shed a light on the chronology of events:

Revelation 1:1

Now, I think revelation was written in AD90s, about six decades after Christ's ascension. Its hard to imagine that Christian principles varied before and after the revelation i.e, the binding of the devil, seated in the heavenlies etc happened around 100AD.

K wrote:

I think it a blessing though to examine such issues.

I agree, following on from Revelation 1:3

It appears that there could be two aspects to revelation - A spiritual battle which is being won in Christ's name; and a physical battle which will be won at his appearance on earth.

K wrote:It is perhaps also important that "angel" doesn't necessarily have to designate a heavenly being, but can simply mean "messenger" or "agent." So within the context of other verses I believe that the only messenger or agent who has the power to bind Satan is Jesus Christ.

I am aware of this doctrine of 'binding the devil' in Jesus name - No comments on that. What I do observe is that in the book of Acts, the apostles used the authority of the Name of Jesus to cast out demons. No 'binding' so that the devils work is stalled.

K wrote: 'angel of the Lord'

Yes, the old testament reference to the pre-incarnate Christ. However, I believe that now the appearance of Christ is different to that in the OT. The glorified human resurrection firstfruit.

Personally, the concept of Christ coming to reign on earth in physical terms fills me with excitement. I have been accused in the past of this being an earthly focus of life. However, there is a group of people who will mourn when they look on Him whom they have pierced - and rejoice when He sets up a promised Kingdom.

[Kurieuo]

Personally, the concept of Christ coming to reign on earth in physical terms fills me with excitement. I have been accused in the past of this being an earthly focus of life. However, there is a group of people who will mourn when they look on Him whom they have pierced - and rejoice when He sets up a promised Kingdom.

Hehe... not that I agree with an Earthly kingdom, I do look forward to finally being in the direct presence of God. I find looking forward can often be uplifting when going through hard times in life. Thinking of the eternity which follows, makes any limited troubles here on Earth seem neglibable in comparison.

I love playing the Thief song by Third Day, if you haven't heard it then never mind.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

You're a blessing Kurieuo, I really enjoy reading your posts.

ps 69:32
Is 57:15

[Anonymous]

Ps 69:32 in KJV (NIV uses poor instead of humble)

The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.

[RGeeB]

Personally, the concept of Christ coming to reign on earth in physical terms fills me with excitement. I have been accused in the past of this being an earthly focus of life. However, there is a group of people who will mourn when they look on Him whom they have pierced - and rejoice when He sets up a promised Kingdom.

Hehe... not that I agree with an Earthly kingdom, I do look forward to finally being in the direct presence of God.

I was studying Zechariah 14:1-10 last night. It ties in well with the angels' statement in Acts 1:11-12

Now, I agree that its not much point arguing about the millenial kingdom; However, I do believe that it gives a lot of encouragement for victims of social injustice in this world.